Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 12:48 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Isn't that kind of the point?  How can this be a national emergency when 99.9% of the population isn't affected by said 'emergency'?




I'm pretty sure my tax dollars are going towards paying for said wall.  While I appreciate the hard work of our service members, I've always thought funding allocation is wasted when ~75% goes towards military spending.  Military industrial complex bloat, waste and leakage aside; I'd much rather see a larger portion of funds go towards other initiatives.

Can you imagine if Trump had merely gotten everyone all riled up about improving infrastructure or something?  Put some sort of nationalist slant on having better roads than mexico?  To be completely honest, I'm not sure I would be all that upset about a national emergency based on spending Billions repairing and upgrading our national highways.  Holly shit!  Aint that a novel idea.  Sure, there would be a lot of people that wouldn't benefit as much from better highways.  Those is very rural areas, further from a highway.  But the VAST majority WOULD benefit, and I would argue even some backwoods christian militia exclusionary types would see some lift from cheaper food/munition/sundries transportation costs down the line.  

You and others here are right when you say I and all my soft sjw eggplant-shoe wearing cuddle buddies let Trump's politics play a role in our assessment of the merits of the wall.  Ill grant you that.  But in reality, I'm skewed by the fact that this stunt is just an extension of the complete shit show his administration has been thus far.  He's the lowest form of con man, one who can only fool the most impressionable of the group.  In response to hard data on the issue, the only response he can muster is 'You have stats that are far worse than the ones I use'.  Thats some weak shit man.  If you're going to **** me, at least put a ***** suit on and take me out to drinks.  Don't just come at me like some nickle dick piss ant without preparing rhetorically whatsoever.


TLDR.  You're right.  The wall doesn't affect me.  That does not meet the bar of justification for its construction.  

For the last time nowhere have I stated I support the SOE and diverting military funds to build the wall. I personally think it's unnecessary.
I just disagree with those that empirically state he cannot.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2019, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That is not putting words in ones mouth and I hope you realize it.

I see trying to answer for someone as putting words in their mouth.

(02-20-2019, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was a personal attack. At least you can own it.

I don't see it as an attack to point out someone's actions.

(02-20-2019, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I responded to you as well. I just didn't make it personal.

Where? The only post I saw responding to me since that post have been you just accusing me of a personal attack and not addressing the substance of the post.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-20-2019, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For the last time nowhere have I stated I support the SOE and diverting military funds to build the wall. I personally think it's unnecessary.

Don't think i said you personally support the SOE, the wall nor the military's involvement in it.  While your rhetorical stylistics imply certain held beliefs, its often merely a tactic to lure targets into an ambiguous corridor for a well rehearsed strafing mission.

Quote:I just disagree with those that empirically state he cannot.

It's hard to empirically say he cannot as the courts have not spoken on the issue yet.  He quite obviously can try, the ill advised narcissistic buffoon said as much.   

I can empirically say that he should not.  That it is wrong for the country, both in the present and for the future. 

But I'm glad you'll take it so far as to say it's unnecessary.   

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 09:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is not disease outbreak.

Drugs are smuggled into the country via planes, boats, or vehicles on roads.  Wall will not effect any of that.  The sad part is that the opioid addiction problem in this country is an actual state of emergency but no one wants to do anything about it.

There is no humanitarian crisis at the border.

The only emergency is Trumps inability to deliver on a campaign promise to make Mexico pay for a wall, but that is personal instead of national.

Measles and TB are on the rise again, is there a threshold for the number that must die first? 12k? Or do you agree that preventative is better?

I agree about the Opioid part you listed, it is a problem but we can't seem to do much about it.

Humanitarian Crisis? How many have to die annually before you will allow it to be called that? Cause to my knowledge several organizations already supplying Humanitarian Aid, which should be definition make it a Crisis.

Who cares who pays for the wall?
Can you supply a much better way to curb illegal immigration from the US-Mexico border?

[Au165]

(02-20-2019, 02:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Can you supply a much better way to curb illegal immigration from the US-Mexico border?

I laid out in another thread how the use of technology could be implemented at a FAR cheaper cost to monitor and apprehend those crossing the border in a much more effective manor. Long story short with advancements in drone technology and surveillance equipment, along with cloud computing, they could easily line the entire border with tech that could not only spot potential illegals entering but also use that data to predict when and where future crossing would take place. 

It's also much more practical when again you realize that people can go under,and over, walls....like they have for hundreds of years. They still struggle with this in Israel where Hezbollah uses networks of tunnels to bypass their defenses. I am not against ramping up security on the border I am against stupid ideas for doing it. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-20-2019, 12:48 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Isn't that kind of the point?  How can this be a national emergency when 99.9% of the population isn't affected by said 'emergency'?




I'm pretty sure my tax dollars are going towards paying for said wall.  While I appreciate the hard work of our service members, I've always thought funding allocation is wasted when ~75% goes towards military spending.  Military industrial complex bloat, waste and leakage aside; I'd much rather see a larger portion of funds go towards other initiatives.

Can you imagine if Trump had merely gotten everyone all riled up about improving infrastructure or something?  Put some sort of nationalist slant on having better roads than mexico?  To be completely honest, I'm not sure I would be all that upset about a national emergency based on spending Billions repairing and upgrading our national highways.  Holly shit!  Aint that a novel idea.  Sure, there would be a lot of people that wouldn't benefit as much from better highways.  Those is very rural areas, further from a highway.  But the VAST majority WOULD benefit, and I would argue even some backwoods christian militia exclusionary types would see some lift from cheaper food/munition/sundries transportation costs down the line.  

You and others here are right when you say I and all my soft sjw eggplant-shoe wearing cuddle buddies let Trump's politics play a role in our assessment of the merits of the wall.  Ill grant you that.  But in reality, I'm skewed by the fact that this stunt is just an extension of the complete shit show his administration has been thus far.  He's the lowest form of con man, one who can only fool the most impressionable of the group.  In response to hard data on the issue, the only response he can muster is 'You have stats that are far worse than the ones I use'.  Thats some weak shit man.  If you're going to **** me, at least put a ***** suit on and take me out to drinks.  Don't just come at me like some nickle dick piss ant without preparing rhetorically whatsoever.


TLDR.  You're right.  The wall doesn't affect me.  That does not meet the bar of justification for its construction.  

So what's that say many of the politicians that say one thing but do the opposite?
Since where is it specifically stated that what the Politicians do has to directly affect you?

Preventing Illegal Immigrants from coming here frees up a lot of tax dollars for those infrastructure projects we all desire.
The wall is a small investment for a larger gain. it's much more mental than physical. If you're from Central America, and you know you can cross the US border, you will try. However if you know once you get there that there is a wall, you know that you're wasting time cause you won't have the resources to get over/under it, so you go to the proper port of entry and apply for Asylum, IF you make the trip.

And no where has anyone said that this is the perfect way to stop all illegal immigration. People just keep coming up with ideas on how to beat the system (with out considering the $$ amounts needed) rather than more ideas on how to fix the system. Trump has it right by doing away with Jus Soli, but no one is backing him. Trump tried to enforce it with an EO, but liberal courts when wild blocking him. By not allowing him to enforce Jus Soli, you leave him with no option but a wall.

If the Democrats are serious, then I'd dangle DACA out there and see how they bite (you know they won't cause they'd lose a tool for rallying voters).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-20-2019, 03:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: I laid out in another thread how the use of technology could be implemented at a FAR cheaper cost to monitor and apprehend those crossing the border in a much more effective manor. Long story short with advancements in drone technology and surveillance equipment, along with cloud computing, they could easily line the entire border with tech that could not only spot potential illegals entering but also use that data to predict when and where future crossing would take place. 

It's also much more practical when again you realize that people can go under,and over, walls....like they have for hundreds of years. They still struggle with this in Israel where Hezbollah uses networks of tunnels to bypass their defenses. I am not against ramping up security on the border I am against stupid ideas for doing it. 

And I've asked before, there is no way this technology can be hacked/jammed/exploited? Can you not Dig under them as well?

I would definitely want cameras with/with out a wall. But are the cameras good enough to slow it down? I mean I'm not scared of a camera, a wall though is a mental deterrent before I even leave my home country to cross over illegally.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what's that say many of the politicians that say one thing but do the opposite?
Since where is it specifically stated that what the Politicians do has to directly affect you?

Preventing Illegal Immigrants from coming here frees up a lot of tax dollars for those infrastructure projects we all desire.
The wall is a small investment for a larger gain. it's much more mental than physical. If you're from Central America, and you know you can cross the US border, you will try. However if you know once you get there that there is a wall, you know that you're wasting time cause you won't have the resources to get over/under it, so you go to the proper port of entry and apply for Asylum, IF you make the trip.

And no where has anyone said that this is the perfect way to stop all illegal immigration. People just keep coming up with ideas on how to beat the system (with out considering the $$ amounts needed) rather than more ideas on how to fix the system. Trump has it right by doing away with Jus Soli, but no one is backing him. Trump tried to enforce it with an EO, but liberal courts when wild blocking him. By not allowing him to enforce Jus Soli, you leave him with no option but a wall.

If the Democrats are serious, then I'd dangle DACA out there and see how they bite (you know they won't cause they'd lose a tool for rallying voters).

Well DJT did tyr and "dangle" it...but he forgot that he already has a suit to get rid of it that is held up in the courts and won't be heard by the SC for at least another year.

Add to that that Trump will say ANYTHING to get his way and then go back on it (pre-existing conditions in the ACA for example) and why why they buy anything he is "dangling"?

No, DJT couldn't negotiate a deal even with a GOP controlled Congress so he's declaring an "emergency" that "he didn't have to" declare just to fund a campaign promise.

I get that his supporters feel he can do wrong.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what's that say many of the politicians that say one thing but do the opposite?
Since where is it specifically stated that what the Politicians do has to directly affect you?

Preventing Illegal Immigrants from coming here frees up a lot of tax dollars for those infrastructure projects we all desire.
The wall is a small investment for a larger gain. it's much more mental than physical. If you're from Central America, and you know you can cross the US border, you will try. However if you know once you get there that there is a wall, you know that you're wasting time cause you won't have the resources to get over/under it, so you go to the proper port of entry and apply for Asylum, IF you make the trip.

And no where has anyone said that this is the perfect way to stop all illegal immigration. People just keep coming up with ideas on how to beat the system (with out considering the $$ amounts needed) rather than more ideas on how to fix the system. Trump has it right by doing away with Jus Soli, but no one is backing him. Trump tried to enforce it with an EO, but liberal courts when wild blocking him. By not allowing him to enforce Jus Soli, you leave him with no option but a wall.

If the Democrats are serious, then I'd dangle DACA out there and see how they bite (you know they won't cause they'd lose a tool for rallying voters).

(02-20-2019, 04:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And I've asked before, there is no way this technology can be hacked/jammed/exploited? Can you not Dig under them as well?

I would definitely want cameras with/with out a wall. But are the cameras good enough to slow it down? I mean I'm not scared of a camera, a wall though is a mental deterrent before I even leave my home country to cross over illegally.

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2019, 01:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For the last time nowhere have I stated I support the SOE and diverting military funds to build the wall. I personally think it's unnecessary.
I just disagree with those that empirically state he cannot.

This is what happens when you have your own opinion but it conflicts with supporting Trump.  You end up trying to argue both ends of the argument.

If you argue that you don't think it is necessary then you have to admit that there is not enough lawlessness at the border to justify it.  But since you commit so hard to supporting Trump you have to argue that the proper definition for "lawlessness" is just "laws being broken".  You won't back off your support for Trump even with it conflicts with your own personal beliefs.   

Personally I think it is absurd to try and argue that any law being broken anywhere allows the President to use the military for police duties, but as the passive aggressive around here like to coo, "To each his own".

[Au165]

(02-20-2019, 04:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And I've asked before, there is no way this technology can be hacked/jammed/exploited? Can you not Dig under them as well?

I would definitely want cameras with/with out a wall. But are the cameras good enough to slow it down? I mean I'm not scared of a camera, a wall though is a mental deterrent before I even leave my home country to cross over illegally.

I went into that in pretty good depth in the other thread. You can't jam a camera you can only interrupt the signal from the camera to the back end. The cameras wouldn't be wireless, as that wouldn't make sense, which means you'd be looking at hardwired. You could theoretically try to distort the optics by shinning lights at them, aside from the fact they they'd probably detect you before you could, anymore you normally have dual sensing technology so Lidar for example could be used as a second sensing method for confirmation of optical alarms. Hacking isn't an issue if they followed standard DOD requirements (which they would). Exploited, not even sure what you mean with this. 

Digging under them is a little more difficult because you don't necessarily know where their range starts and stops versus an actual physical obstacle to be dealt with. Add in the fact the AI here can be programmed to look for very slight environmental changes that could indicate things such as tunneling or camouflaging efforts. You could layer lines of sensors for miles into the country and even work in conjunction with the Mexican Government to expand range into their borders deeper, maybe as part of a negotiation.

Walls aren't deterrents to people who look at the other side as their chance at a better life, no one is scared of a wall. As I said, the sensing technology can be used for predictive policing to better deploy the agents that we have and be better and deterring or capturing using our policing assets. AI can used on all of the alarm data to find patterns in paths, group sizes, dates, times, etc to better know how to stop them early. 

Now imagine doing all of this at a fraction of the cost of a large physical structure that will take years to implement. It would make sense to do the tech first and if you still aren't happy with the results proceed from there before locking into a massive legal fight that will require taking citizens lands.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what's that say many of the politicians that say one thing but do the opposite?
Since where is it specifically stated that what the Politicians do has to directly affect you?

WTF are you talking about.  Slow down there hiccups, youve been hitting that sauce earlier and earlier lately.  I was responding to another post.  READ.  

On to the rest of your inane jabbering...

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Preventing Illegal Immigrants from coming here frees up a lot of tax dollars for those infrastructure projects we all desire.

If that's what you're after.  Do it smarter, cheaper (see AU's post above), more effective.  Just because some idiots in tampa bought the t-shirt at connie donnie's rally, doesn't mean its an effective tool.  Jesus man.  Just because someone puts a product in your hand and tells you its a good deal doesn't mean you have to buy it.  Shop around.

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Preventing Illegal Immigrants from coming here frees up a lot of tax dollars for those infrastructure projects we all desire.
The wall is a small investment for a larger gain. it's much more mental than physical. If you're from Central America, and you know you can cross the US border, you will try. However if you know once you get there that there is a wall, you know that you're wasting time cause you won't have the resources to get over/under it, so you go to the proper port of entry and apply for Asylum, IF you make the trip.

If I'm from Central America and a wall is finally completed 15 years from now, I'm guessing there will already be a lot of tunnels underneath it.  I would also look into something called a boat.  Hell if I was real crafty, I'd save $500 for a plane tix and just stay here instead.  The wall does 
nothing but divert to other holes.  

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And no where has anyone said that this is the perfect way to stop all illegal immigration. People just keep coming up with ideas on how to beat the system (with out considering the $$ amounts needed) rather than more ideas on how to fix the system. Trump has it right by doing away with Jus Soli, but no one is backing him. Trump tried to enforce it with an EO, but liberal courts when wild blocking him. By not allowing him to enforce Jus Soli, you leave him with no option but a wall.

So in the absence of a perfect way, we get stuck with bullshit you don't even fully buy into?  Trump himself said "he doesn't need to do this."  he just sort of wants to do it 'fast'.  

And keep it up with the 'you made him do this' line of argument.  Sounds like you've got some good points there killer.  

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If the Democrats are serious, then I'd dangle DACA out there and see how they bite (you know they won't cause they'd lose a tool for rallying voters).

Democrats literally have too many issues to rally around this cycle, DACA will be a low priority.  But you and your neo-con iron-dome types have too much fear of the other clogged in your ears to absorb points that will positively impact you and your families well being.  

[Vas Deferens]

(02-20-2019, 05:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: I went into that in pretty good depth in the other thread. You can't jam a camera you can only interrupt the signal from the camera to the back end. The cameras wouldn't be wireless, as that wouldn't make sense, which means you'd be looking at hardwired. You could theoretically try to distort the optics by shinning lights at them, aside from the fact they they'd probably detect you before you could, anymore you normally have dual sensing technology so Lidar for example could be used as a second sensing method for confirmation of optical alarms. Hacking isn't an issue if they followed standard DOD requirements (which they would). Exploited, not even sure what you mean with this. 

Digging under them is a little more difficult because you don't necessarily know where their range starts and stops versus an actual physical obstacle to be dealt with. Add in the fact the AI here can be programmed to look for very slight environmental changes that could indicate things such as tunneling or camouflaging efforts. You could layer lines of sensors for miles into the country and even work in conjunction with the Mexican Government to expand range into their borders deeper, maybe as part of a negotiation.

Walls aren't deterrents to people who look at the other side as their chance at a better life, no one is scared of a wall. As I said, the sensing technology can be used for predictive policing to better deploy the agents that we have and be better and deterring or capturing using our policing assets. AI can used on all of the alarm data to find patterns in paths, group sizes, dates, times, etc to better know how to stop them early. 

Now imagine doing all of this at a fraction of the cost of a large physical structure that will take years to implement. It would make sense to do the tech first and if you still aren't happy with the results proceed from there before locking into a massive legal fight that will require taking citizens lands.

thats where you lost him

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see trying to answer for someone as putting  words in their mouth.


I don't see it as an attack to point out someone's actions.


Where? The only post I saw responding to me since that post have been you just accusing me of a personal attack and not addressing the substance of the post.

Roll with it; there's a slight chance you may one day believe but few others will.

if I had started with "What sean was saying...." then you may have a point, but when you start off with "I see you putting words in people's mouths again" the intent is to slur; not simply pointing out actions. Not to mention when asked whose mouth I put word in your response was "Surprisingly not mine this time".

Everyone here knows your responses were meant to be personal  and to slur (see that's actually putting words in one's mouth and they are free to disagree) and that's OK, we all do it. But to not be forthright enough to admit your intent brings you quality down as a rational/honest poster quite a bit in my book

There's really no need for response once someone decides to take it to the personal level. Nothing will be accomplished and this has ran it's course.

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 04:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is what happens when you have your own opinion but it conflicts with supporting Trump.  You end up trying to argue both ends of the argument.

If you argue that you don't think it is necessary then you have to admit that there is not enough lawlessness at the border to justify it.  But since you commit so hard to supporting Trump you have to argue that the proper definition for "lawlessness" is just "laws being broken".  You won't back off your support for Trump even with it conflicts with your own personal beliefs.   

Personally I think it is absurd to try and argue that any law being broken anywhere allows the President to use the military for police duties, but as the passive aggressive around here like to coo, "To each his own".

I don't see stating someone has the authority to do something while disagreeing with the choice to do so as arguing both sides of the argument.

But as you say" "To each his own"

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't see stating someone has the authority to do something while disagreeing with the choice to do so as arguing both sides of the argument.

Then back to the original question.

Do you feel that just "laws were broken" is enough "lawlessness" to authorize the President to use the military for police activity?  And if so, doesn't that mean he can pretty much do it anytime and anywhere he wants?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-20-2019, 05:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: I went into that in pretty good depth in the other thread. You can't jam a camera you can only interrupt the signal from the camera to the back end. The cameras wouldn't be wireless, as that wouldn't make sense, which means you'd be looking at hardwired. You could theoretically try to distort the optics by shinning lights at them, aside from the fact they they'd probably detect you before you could, anymore you normally have dual sensing technology so Lidar for example could be used as a second sensing method for confirmation of optical alarms. Hacking isn't an issue if they followed standard DOD requirements (which they would). Exploited, not even sure what you mean with this. 

Digging under them is a little more difficult because you don't necessarily know where their range starts and stops versus an actual physical obstacle to be dealt with. Add in the fact the AI here can be programmed to look for very slight environmental changes that could indicate things such as tunneling or camouflaging efforts. You could layer lines of sensors for miles into the country and even work in conjunction with the Mexican Government to expand range into their borders deeper, maybe as part of a negotiation.

Walls aren't deterrents to people who look at the other side as their chance at a better life, no one is scared of a wall. As I said, the sensing technology can be used for predictive policing to better deploy the agents that we have and be better and deterring or capturing using our policing assets. AI can used on all of the alarm data to find patterns in paths, group sizes, dates, times, etc to better know how to stop them early. 

Now imagine doing all of this at a fraction of the cost of a large physical structure that will take years to implement. It would make sense to do the tech first and if you still aren't happy with the results proceed from there before locking into a massive legal fight that will require taking citizens lands.

You might have went more in depth in the other post, I think we had like 3 wall threads going at once, so sorry I lost track of which one it was in.

I am fine with this, if the technology is truly there. I don't keep up with that technology. As I've said before if a better way can be presented I'm open to listening.

How will the power grid be setup? What happens if the power cord is found and cut? How many will go out and for how long? How spread out will CBP stations be setup? Basically what kind of response time would you be aiming for?


Vas Deferens do you have a problem? Do you wish to make this personal?

[Au165]

(02-20-2019, 08:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You might have went more in depth in the other post, I think we had like 3 wall threads going at once, so sorry I lost track of which one it was in.

I am fine with this, if the technology is truly there. I don't keep up with that technology. As I've said before if a better way can be presented I'm open to listening.

How will the power grid be setup? What happens if the power cord is found and cut? How many will go out and for how long? How spread out will CBP stations be setup? Basically what kind of response time would you be aiming for?


Vas Deferens do you have a problem? Do you wish to make this personal?

Power is something I’d have to do more research on to figure out what areas are able to support it or not. I figure even putting a 7k resolution camera every quarter mile (overkill) of the 2k miles you’d be looking somewhere around 100 Million dollars with install and pole mounting. Even if you had to run infrastructure along the entire border your looking at less than a billion dollars all in with added benefits of electrical and network infrastructure along the border.

Where to put stations isn’t really a big deal as I think it just depends. In a lot of the areas now that don’t have stations it’s because the terrain is so bad that it takes people days on foot to get to a road. If we alarm early enough you’ll meet up with them before they hit the road. To me that’s almost based on each individual area. Obviously it would take a some time to figure out the logistics but my main point is I think we can improve security on the border for a fraction of what is now 8 Billion not including upkeep over time.

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2019, 08:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then back to the original question.

1.Do you feel that just "laws were broken" is enough "lawlessness" to authorize the President to use the military for police activity? 

3. And if so, doesn't that mean he can pretty much do it anytime and anywhere he wants?

Not sure those were the original question(s), but whateves:

1. Yes

2. No** 

**Replace "wants" with "deems necessary" then Yes. 


Now the Judicial can disagree or Congress can pass a law. It's known as checks and balances. 

[Dill]

(02-20-2019, 04:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what's that say many of the politicians that say one thing but do the opposite?
Since where is it specifically stated that what the Politicians do has to directly affect you?

Recent example--a presidential candidate promised to build a wall and make MEXICO pay for it.
When elected, he decided the taxpayers would do it. And then he didn't really do much to get THAT done when his party controlled the house and senate.

When he lost control of the house, and a talk show host and a columnist told him to shut down the government to get 1/5 of the wall money he could have gotten a year earlier had he signed a deal offered by the opposing party, his followers called it "keeping a promise."

So it isn't just politicians who are the problem. This guy got elected because he got enough people to actually believe that, once Hillary was locked up, he WOULD get Mexico to pay for the wall. And when he didn't, they then believed he could--and should--get taxpayers to pay for it.  The belief is so strong that they will accept all manner of incompetence and misbehavior on this guy's part, if he just keeps saying "the wall of concrete," " the wall of steel," "the wall work on which has already begun," " the combination of concrete and steel walls and fences," "the fences."